The Science is Settled

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

So 36% for not man-made means The Alarmist have a “consensus” and the “science is settled”. The 64% that don’t believe them must therefore be morons. So time to lie even more and step up the political arm of this control agenda because the facts don’t matter and their sanctimony and “rightness” must be assured.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

So 24+17 (that’s more than 36 right?) against the IPCC “gods” of “consensus. The scientist in this survey must be complete morons not to bow down to the “the truth” of the Alarmist Wolf Criers. 🙂

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

24+17+10 against the IPCC. So the IPCC “consensus” and The President therefore MUST be right? 🙂

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

24+17+10+5 = We have liftoff! The IPCC and The Global Warming Chicken Littles must be right! 🙂

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

And they use typical condescending and childish ad homimems to quell your disagreement with their ‘superior intellect’ and their ‘superior knowledge’ of the situation which obviously you are too stupid to understand.

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

Yeah, but any scientist who isn’t with the Party Line is a mislead moron who doesn’t speak for the “consensus”.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. (Forbes)

But you’ll never hear that from The Ministry of Truth or our Alarmist President who thinks Global Warming is more important than Iranian  Nukes or the Beheading Terrorists. After all, they aren’t on the Totalitarian Control Agenda so they don’t really matter. 🙂

You must be an idiot to oppose their superiority over you.

Sounds like the average Leftist to me. Now that’s a Consensus… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Election Time’s a Comin’

“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC last month, per the Hill. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. . . . There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”

And Obama agrees, or seemed to think so in 2011, according to U.S. News and World Report’s Ken Walsh.

“A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to ‘take back’ their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea,” Walsh wrote. “He agreed that there was a ‘subterranean agenda’ in the anti-Obama movement — a racially biased one — that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.”

Good thing Crazy Uncle Joe (The VP) is not on board 🙂

Vice President Joe Biden staked his claim to the labor vote by declaring that “it’s time to take back America” in order to ensure that the middle class gets an “equal share” of prosperity in the country.

“If we don’t, America’s in trouble,” Biden said in Detroit Monday. (NRO)

Or maybe, being a white guy he’s just a crazy old racist! 🙂 Isn’t every white person these days?

I mean the election is 2 months away, so time to ratchet up the fear, and the hatred, and Divide & Conquer to hopeful victory!

Hope & Change is back! 🙂

Fear is Hope!

And Control is Change.

Rejoice!
Or what could be the Democrat mantra: Racism for thee but not for me.

Democrats are using the tragic shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri earlier this month to mobilize black voters ahead of the midterm elections. It could impact the races in Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Arkansas, where black voters represent a significant part of the electorate. African-Americans represent thirty percent of eligible voters in Louisiana and Georgia alone. The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin indicated that African-Americans “played a pivotal role” in 1998 elections. Yet, trying to drive up voter turnout will be tricky since the states that will determine if Democrats keep the Senate are in the south, where Obama is deeply unpopular (NYT)

But we are dealing with the morally and ethically win-at-any-cost end justifies the means Liberals. So why not use a dead man and racism as a  campaign tactic. As long as it works, Liberals don’t care.

Which is why they are Sanctimoniously superior to you mere mortal and should rule everyone and everything with absolute power!. 🙂

They have no shame. Why should they? They are Homo Superior Liberalis, a superior form of life, you’re just too stupid to recognize it, so they have to force you any way they can to accept their superiority.

Now, that’s America, for you. 🙂

 

 

 

 

20+ Things

You have to give liberalism a certain amount of credit. It doesn’t work, destroys lives, and pits people against each other, but that’s not to say that there are no advantages to being a liberal. Sure, you may end up sleeping in a tent in Zuccotti Park, reading Noam Chomsky’s laughably ignorant books, or having to watch Rachel Maddow babble incoherent nonsense on MSNBC, but the fringe benefits cannot be beaten!

1) If you’re a politician, no matter how dumb you are or how poor your decision-making is, the press will still never question your intelligence.

2) You can claim to personally speak for everyone in your gender or racial group, like you’re their leader, and the press will take you seriously.

3) You can feel completely superior to people who are more admired, more influential, richer, happier, more successful, and just generally better than you in almost every way (like Sarah Palin) because they’re conservatives.

4) You can declare that other people should have their money taken away and given to the government and still get credit for being “compassionate” even if you give nothing yourself.

5) You can leave a woman to die at the bottom of a tidal pool, use crack, or have a gay prostitution ring run out of your apartment and other liberals will STILL vote for you.

6) You can suggest that black Americans are too incompetent to handle something as simple as getting a photo ID without being called racist.

7) You can use capitalism to make huge piles of money and then turn right around and score brownie points with your fellow liberals by ripping an economic system that made it possible for you to actually become filthy rich writing, making music, or acting for a living.

8) No matter how many insults you lob at people you disagree with or how determined you are to refuse to listen to their arguments, you will never feel as if you’re being uncivil or close minded.

9) You can be a white man who calls himself the first black President without getting in trouble with Al Sharpton and be a serial adulterer who even cheats with an intern without getting in trouble with NOW.

10) You can go an entire lifetime without having a single kind thing to say about America and still consider yourself to be patriotic.

11) Similarly, you can disregard the Bible, ignore slurs aimed at Christianity, and mock people who take their religious beliefs seriously and still consider yourself to be a Christian.

12) You can be perfectly fine with cheating on your own taxes while you call other people “greedy” for not wanting to pay higher taxes themselves.

13) If you’re a minority, you can actually hold a prominent media job centered around regularly accusing other people of being racists.

14) You’ll be considered “courageous” by your left-wing friends when you get up in front of a group of liberals and say things that all of you believe to be true.

15) If you run for office, you’ll get questions like, “(Do you think your opponents are) uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?” from the media while your opponents will be getting asked questions that start with the presumption that they hate half the country or their economic policies couldn’t possibly work.

16) You can be a former KKK member who drops the N-bomb on TV and people will still deny you’re a racist.

17) You can ride around in an SUV, fly on a private jet, and have a mansion while you lecture other people about the importance of having a small environmental footprint and other liberals won’t have a problem with it at all.

18) You can claim to hold the exact same position as conservatives on gay marriage and you won’t be called a homophobe.

19) You can regularly call conservative women sluts, whores, tw_ts, and even the C-word and still call yourself a feminist without other people laughing out loud.

20) You get to feel comfortable with lying to other people because you know what’s in their own best interests better than they do and if they were a little more enlightened — like you — they’d thank you for misleading them into doing the right thing!

And Orwell would be proud of you.

Additionally, when you do run for office all you have to do is tell your future dependents…I mean constituents…”Vote for Me, The other guy’s and asshole!” and they will flock to you in droves. The fact that you might be an even bigger asshole has no relevance on the Left.

And “diversity” means that everyone should share your views only and anyone who disagrees with you should be muzzled, silenced or called a homophobe or misogynist and dismissed as insignificant!

The merger of Two airlines is bad. But Weed and Illegal Aliens coming across the border with abandon are not.

Pass Executive Orders doing what you want rather than going through an “obstructionist” “Congress” (meaning those uncaring, insensitive, nasty, evil trolls in The House).

Pass regulations that hurt job growth and then blame the lack of job growth on the businesses and be cheered on by the media and your dependents who can’t get those jobs.

And if all else fails, just call them a racist and walk away feeling vastly superior.

Viva Homo Superior Liberalis!

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Is

The U.S. still employs more than 2.5 million fewer people than when the recession began. At 180,000 jobs a month, it will take until the middle of 2014 to close that gap. Adjust for population growth, and it will take nine more years to return to the prerecession level of employment at the current rate of growth, according to the Brookings Institution.

That would be the middle of President Hilary Clinton’s Second term and very good for her hand picked successor.

“Headwinds and tailwinds are canceling each other out,” said Lou Crandall of the economic research firm Wrightson ICAP.

The longer that stalemate continues, the worse the long-term damage will be. Already, millions of unemployed Americans have given up looking for jobs; many will likely never work again.

Youth unemployment stands at 16.1% and would be a Europe-like 22% if more than 1.5 million young people hadn’t dropped out of the labor force; economic research suggests their early-career woes will leave lasting scars. The slow pace of growth leaves the economy more vulnerable to an unexpected shock—meaning a flare-up in Europe’s debt crisis or surge in oil prices could send the U.S. back into crisis mode. (WSJ)

Never let a Crisis go to Waste! 🙂

Obama has 3 fundraisers in New York along in next week. It’s not like he’s got anything to worry about… 🙂

“I would love nothing better than an effective, loyal opposition that is willing to meet us halfway and move the country forward (and do whatever I want them to) — because that’s what the American people are looking for (but since they won’t do everything I want when I want I’ll just blame them for everything). The economy is growing but there is still a lot of folks out there who are struggling; still way too many people who are unemployed; (I’m focused like a laser beam on jobs! 🙂 not campaigning or covering up) people who haven’t seen a raise in a decade (unlike Congress); people whose homes are still underwater; people who when they see $4-a-gallon gas  (it was less than$2 when you became President-but I’m sure that’s the evil oil companies you’ve been trying to destroy’s fault!) know that that is money that’s coming straight out of their pockets or their retirement funds and is going to be very hard to make up. (And ObamaCare will certainly help!) 🙂 And they’re hoping that we can do some governing (why break the trend!) 🙂. And that’s what I intend to do this year, and the year after that and the year after that,” Obama told the group. (Translation: Campaign!)

“But I would be dishonest if I didn’t say that it would be a whole lot easier to govern if I had Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.” (WS)

Yeah, the last time we got Stimulus Spending and a year-and-half mud fight cramming ObamaCare down our throats. That was progress.

But yes, it would be so much easier if their was no opposition to The Agenda and they could just do whatever they wanted, when they wanted, and because they wanted. And they could thumb their noses at the peons and peasants who objected to their high and mighty superiority.

Hope 🙂

“And I want her once again as a fully empowered partner for us to be able to move our agenda forward.”

Campaign Mode Overdrive: Engaged!

BY-Partisanship is our goal!

2014 totalitarianism or bust!

IRS UPDATE: At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials targeted nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.

On Jan. 15, 2012 the agency decided to target “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement.,” according to the appendix in the IG report.

And next year they get to enforce ObamaCare. Doesn’t that just fill you with hope & glee. 🙂

BENGHAZI UPDATE

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

Removed: Al-Qaeda , CIA warnings, and terrorism.

Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya.  These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted. (ABC)

Nothing to see here, move along… 🙂

The CIA draft included: The draft went on to specifically name  the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Instead we got the Internet Video storyline.

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

And the White was trying to avoid it altogether!

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now.

So it makes you go hmmmmm….

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either. (NY)

Depends on your definition of what is, is… What IS editing… What IS Terrorism…What IS a cover-up….

If it smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, IS it a duck? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

Talk is not so Cheap

FAA Update:

The White House has endorsed a plan to eliminate FAA spending cuts that have cause air travel delays across the country. The agency has been forced to furlough air traffic controllers as part of the automatic budget cuts that kicked in this spring. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to end the cuts by claiming savings from the draw down of war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans reject his proposal calling it an accounting gimmick.
Of course it’s an accounting gimmick.  The point is that Democrats are desperate to extricate themselves from this mess, which they orchestrated in a bone-headed attempt to rile public anger against any spending cuts.

Chicago Tribune: Hours before the federal spending sequester began on March 1, when President Barack Obama predicted that “People are going to be hurt,” he did not add, Trust me, I’ll make sure of it. But he might as well have, as this week’s furloughs of air traffic controllers make obvious. The furloughs reflect panic: Having exaggerated their early predictions that the sequester’s small reduction in spending growth would seriously affect Americans, many Democrats are hell-bent to pre-empt those Americans from drawing two logical conclusions: If one level of cuts is this painless, then maybe we should make … more cuts to expenditures. And while we’re at it, maybe we should ignore the politicians who told us that if Washington lowered the spending growth curve … the Earth will fly into the sun….

We’re less certain, though, that this hostage-taking will cut the way the White House expects: The scheme relies on citizens being — how to put this delicately? — stupid enough to think that the Federal Aviation Administration can’t find a more flier-friendly way to save $600 million.

The Trib’s editors also cite polling showing that the public is less and less worried about the sequester cuts by the day, which likely sparked panic inside the White House:  We can’t allow spending cuts to go unnoticed.  People might start getting the wrong idea.  It’s time to deliberately inflict totally avoidable pain on the populace — it’s for their own good, really. (townhall)

A pre-sequester FAA report demonstrated that air traffic controllers were operating at 22 percent over capacity.  Even FAA employees are aware that the pain is political and intentional: “I am disgusted with everything that I see since the sequester took place,” another FAA employee wrote. “Whether in HQ or at the field level it is clear that our management has no intention of managing anything. The only effort that I see is geared towards generating fear and demonstrating failure.(Townhall)

So the Congress passes a bill and the whole stupid episode goes away, but it’s still not their fault.

Speaking of  flying off on partisan stupidity..

Rep. Hank Johnson (D) (The guy who in 2010 said if too many Marine were on Guam the Island would tip over!) took to the House floor “like a kid at a carnival” Thursday to defend Americans’ right to helium in light of sequester spending cuts.

The Georgia Democrat, irked by his Republican cohorts, gave a snarky, pun-heavy speech in support of the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act of 2013, which would prevent the closure of the Federal
Helium Reserve, scheduled to shutter by October.

“Mr. Speaker, I’m relieved, and I’m sure that the American people are relieved as well, that Congress is finally going to do something about one of the most pressing issues of the day,” he began. “That is we’ve got to ensure access to helium for all.”
The substance of this bill is not the focus of my sarcasm,” he said. “My point is that America would be much better off if this tea party Republican Congress brought to the floor issues that mean the most to Americans.”

(that’s funny, because the Senate has a Left Wing Democrat Majority that refuses to even talk to the other side of the political aisle)

You mean like $7 Trillion Dollars in new Debt and annual deficits near or over a Trillion dollars a year?
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

7.8%+ unemployment for  4 1/2 years?
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

That 20% of all Americans are on Food Stamps.
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

Muslim Terrorists.
Sorry, Democrats REALLY don’t want to talk about that.

Border Security.
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that. They just want to promote “undocumented Democrats”.

Benghazi.
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

Failure of Schools to adequately Educate.
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

ObamaCare Costs.
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that. (But they do want to exempt themselves!)

The Debt Ceiling.
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

The Budget that hasn’t been passed in 4+ years.
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

Iran, North Korea, etc.
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

“Knowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria doesn’t tell us when they were used, how they were used,” Mr. Obama told reporters in the Oval Office. “We have to act prudently. We have to make these assessments deliberately.”

Orwell would be proud of your cowardice and lack of backbone about your own “line in the sand”.

Welfare Reform?
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

The abuses of Federal Government Power?
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.

Government Ammo Stockpiling?
Sorry, Democrats don’t want to talk about that.
But they are hopped up on Helium, Sugar, Soda, salt, Gays, Illegals, Their own Hubris, The AGENDA, fundraising for 2014, and your right to defend yourself you evil bastards!

So leave them alone. They have their Priorities…. indeed… 🙂

“Everybody sit down,” Obama said sheepishly. “You’re making me blush.”

He told a crowd at the Planned Parenthood Conference. He is after all, Pro-Choice, as long as you make the Correct Choice! (aka whatever the Liberal says).

After all, AG Holder: He said that establishing legal status for the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants is a “matter of civil and human rights.”

“The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows transcends the issue of immigration status.” “This is a matter of civil and human rights,” Holder continued.

So if being here illegally is a “civil right” then why do we have a border at all. Everyone is entitle to come here at will and at whim (and vote for the Democrats).

So do they want to talk about that, or just high-handed demagoguery? 🙂

Speaking of that…

CRONY CAPITALISM UPDATE

Ever since the Clinton administration agreed in 1999 to make $50,000 payments to thousands of black farmers, the Hispanics and women had been clamoring in courtrooms and in Congress for the same deal. They argued, as the African-Americans had, that biased federal loan officers had systematically thwarted their attempts to borrow money to farm.

But a succession of courts — and finally the Supreme Court — had rebuffed their pleas. Instead of an army of potential claimants, the government faced just 91 plaintiffs. Those cases, the government lawyers figured, could be dispatched at limited cost.

They were wrong.

On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, interviews and records show, the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.

The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections — until now undisclosed — of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud.

(emphasis added)

Absolutely unbelievable.  Ever wonder how Obama can “need” higher taxes despite going on the biggest spending spree in American history? Perhaps this story offers a clue. (townhall)

Will Democrat want to talk about that?

No.

pro-choice butexempt 2exempt

 

Victims of a Bullied Justice

The IRS Can NOW Enter Through The Rear

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

What do you know it’s a TAX!

2009: “That may be, but it’s still a tax increase,” said Stephanopoulos.

“No,” said the president. “That’s not true, George.  The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. 

Stephanopoulos cited Merriam Webster’s Dictionary definition. “Tax — ‘a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'”

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” said the president. “Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition….I absolutely reject that notion” that it’s a tax increase. (ABC News)

Yeah, But Chief Justice Roberts just ruled that it was a TAX. That’s why Obamacare is “Constitutional”, because it’s TAX in the view of the “majority” opinion.

Like he did when Obamacare was being debated, Obama will try to hide from Americans the fact that Obamacare is a tax increase when he is on the stump. But in 2012, he won’t be able to take credit for Obamacare without admitting that it is a tax increase because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in upholding his law, called him out on it. (Breitbart)

But at least 1700+ companies, mostly unions are exempt because of the waivers passed out like candy to his apparatchiks. Oh happy Days.

Why Roberts did it

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, June 28, 1:11 PM

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do?

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

So he gave into pressure to be “liked” and to not appear to be a “right wing judicial activist”. Image Politics at it’s finest and darkest.

So like the Republicans in the Debt Ceiling vote they caved into the pressure from the intolerant and partisan media and we all get to be victims of the Bully Pulpit.

Democrats carry out their strategy of trashing the Court as a “corporate dominated arm of the Republican party.” The truth may, in fact be that the Court is dominated easily–not by corporate interests, but by Obama’s imperial presidency and an intolerant mainstream media. 

If Chief Justice Roberts thought he was preserving public trust in the Supreme Court today, he will quickly learn he has done the opposite–not least because Democrats define bipartisanship as complete capitulation. Liberals–still smarting over Bush v. Gore–and conservatives now both have reason to distrust the court and its motives. If that “bipartisanship” is the legacy of the Chief Justice’s apparent switch, it is a bitter bequest. (Breitbart)

Also worth reading: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chief-justice-roberts-its-not-tax-it-tax-its-law-its-not-unlawful-break-it

He was for it After he was against it. The tortured logic of a bully’s victim.

He’s got Stockholm Syndrome.

And we all get hit with the shrapnel. I wonder if Post Traumatic Roberts Syndrome will be covered by ObamaCare?

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy)- a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected  by the least capable of producing,and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or  succeed,are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of
a diminishing number of producers.

One last thing:  As soon as the law was ruled Constitutional, some members of the DNC showed their class.  A tweet was sent out that read, “It’s Constitutional, bitches!”  That’s class for ya. It’s must be that new “civility” they were talking about.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Getting Ahead

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Sign found in the toilet, Press here for your money… LOL! 🙂

Straining to find a way to excuse President Obama’s Friday remark that “the private sector is doing fine,” on Monday’s NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry did her best to spin for the White House: “He is right in saying that the private sector is doing better than the public sector, is he not? And so that was his point, that this comment was taken out of context.”

And she is a “journalist”. 🙂

CBS President Les Moonves: “ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.” (LA TIMES)

MSNBC Host Hayes on the same panel as Curry: “I also think the word ‘fine’ in that context is like if you fell and gashed your head and you were bleeding and your friend said, ‘Are you okay?’ And you said, ‘I’m fine.’ It means you don’t have to rush me to the emergency room.”

In other words, the economic problems facing the nation are merely a gushing head wound for America. (MRC)

Well, I know I feel better. And We can count on ObamaCare to take care of the gushing head wound right? 🙂

***************

Given them an inch and they’ll want MORE!!

MYFOXNY.COM –The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens.  They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.

At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

“The popcorn isn’t a whole lot better than the soda,” Vladeck said.

Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.

“There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories,” said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city.  It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills.

The New York City Restaurant Association is fighting the proposal and is considering legal action of it goes into effect.

New York City voters oppose 51 – 46 percent Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on the sale of over-sized sugary soft drinks, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

Mind you, Popcorn by itself is actually GOOD for you, it’s the butter that isn’t. But don’t tell that to a do-gooder-now-that-the-nose-of-the-800-pound-mafia-gorilla-is-in-the-tent-lets-ban-or control-everything Liberal.
MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch: “We complain politicians don’t take stands, aren’t courageous. God bless this guy. To Nancy’s point, this is no different than tobacco. We solve obesity, we solve the health care problem. We’ve got to do something. So of course, every time you make a revolutionary move, there’s going to be some complaints, ‘Are they overstepping the boundaries?’ I applaud him.”
*********
In the DVD release for HBO’s Game of Thrones, episode 10, show-runners Dave Benioff and D.B. Weiss admit to using the severed head of former president George W. Bush in the scene below. The show-runners statement follows.

“The last head on the left is George Bush. George Bush’s head appears in a couple of beheading scenes. It’s not a choice, it’s not a political statement. We just had to use whatever head we had lying around.” – Dave Benioff & D.B. Weiss

Gee, I wonder if that would work with Obama? But I guess this is what happens after the Liberals assassinated him the last time (The 2006 Movie “Death of a President”) and that didn’t work. 🙂
********

41 percent of liberals don’t like Mormons, up  20 percent form 2007.American National Election Studies (ANES).

The Party of “tolerance” and “fairness” and blamers of “hate”. Got love it.

*****

How can you tell a Liberal is a Hypocrite/Self-Serving/Lying?

Are they still breathing!? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

But anything non-Liberal is evil, racist, misogynistic and bad for you. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie